I know it probably doesnt work that way, so i think it's a poor choice of review question. Might as well ask to rate your own ethical behavior (like my company does and FYI, by policy you can't get any higher than a 3 out of 5).

What? That makes no sense. Why even have 4 or 5 then? Are they saying that even the most scrupulously honest and ethical of employees is just meeting the average expectation or do they not believe that anyone is very ethical?

Reminds me of an early psychological evaluation test I read about decades ago. It said that they had control questions in there to assess the respondents' honesty. One of the control questions was "have you ever snuck into the movies?" based on the idea that EVERYONE had done that so anyone who said they hadn't was lying and scores should be adjusted accordingly. Um, no, I never did that actually and I'm sure I'm not all that unique.

3 is meets expectations, 4 and 5 are exceeds and far exceeds expectations, respectively. Our performance review process is that you rate yourself on this and a bunch of other metrics, and then go over the scores with your manager, who can adjust the scores according to their interpretation. So although you can score higher on other items, it's standard practice to give everyone a 3 on the "ethics" and "integrity" questions because the assumption is that everyone meets expectations for those, and there is no way to exceed them (or at least no way to document exceeding ethical behavior - any instance of ethical behavior by definitely meets expectations of behaving ethically).

There is also no chance of a lower score. If you were unethical and caught, you would have been fired already. If you were unethical and not caught, you're certainly not going to admit to it in a performance review! It's the "everybody gets a trophy" of review questions.

Obviously, the thing that doesn't make sense is, why bother to have questions with no chance of differential scoring in a review process where the whole point is to create differential scores?

I know it probably doesnt work that way, so i think it's a poor choice of review question. Might as well ask to rate your own ethical behavior (like my company does and FYI, by policy you can't get any higher than a 3 out of 5).

What? That makes no sense. Why even have 4 or 5 then? Are they saying that even the most scrupulously honest and ethical of employees is just meeting the average expectation or do they not believe that anyone is very ethical?

Reminds me of an early psychological evaluation test I read about decades ago. It said that they had control questions in there to assess the respondents' honesty. One of the control questions was "have you ever snuck into the movies?" based on the idea that EVERYONE had done that so anyone who said they hadn't was lying and scores should be adjusted accordingly. Um, no, I never did that actually and I'm sure I'm not all that unique.

3 is meets expectations, 4 and 5 are exceeds and far exceeds expectations, respectively. Our performance review process is that you rate yourself on this and a bunch of other metrics, and then go over the scores with your manager, who can adjust the scores according to their interpretation. So although you can score higher on other items, it's standard practice to give everyone a 3 on the "ethics" and "integrity" questions because the assumption is that everyone meets expectations for those, and there is no way to exceed them (or at least no way to document exceeding ethical behavior - any instance of ethical behavior by definitely meets expectations of behaving ethically).

There is also no chance of a lower score. If you were unethical and caught, you would have been fired already. If you were unethical and not caught, you're certainly not going to admit to it in a performance review! It's the "everybody gets a trophy" of review questions.

Obviously, the thing that doesn't make sense is, why bother to have questions with no chance of differential scoring in a review process where the whole point is to create differential scores?

Apparently, it's just to make us all a bit crazier.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 09:36:25 AM by Dazi »

Logged

Meditate. Live purely. Quiet the mind. Do your work with mastery. Like the moon, come out from behind the clouds! Shine. ---Gautama Buddah

A while ago I saw a pin on pinterest regarding exercising that said something like " it takes X weeks before you see any difference, X weeks before people close to you see it and X weeks before the rest of the world notice".I was wondering what the numbers where if anyone knows.I would guess maybe at least 3 weeks, 6 weeks and 2 or 3 months?

A while ago I saw a pin on pinterest regarding exercising that said something like " it takes X weeks before you see any difference, X weeks before people close to you see it and X weeks before the rest of the world notice".I was wondering what the numbers where if anyone knows.I would guess maybe at least 3 weeks, 6 weeks and 2 or 3 months?

Funnily enough, last week I read an article that mentioned a variant on that quote from a personal trainer. The numbers were "It takes a month before you feel a difference, two months before you can see a difference in yourself, and three before anyone else starts to notice a difference".

Logged

It's best to love your family as you would a Siberian Tiger - from a distance, preferably separated by bars . -- Pearls Before Swine (16-May-2009)

Stupid I-didn't-grow-up-with-much-cultural-diversity question: how do you pronounce the last name "Nguyen?" I listened to two variations on the Wikipedia page and I don't think I can make my mouth DO that noise

Stupid I-didn't-grow-up-with-much-cultural-diversity question: how do you pronounce the last name "Nguyen?" I listened to two variations on the Wikipedia page and I don't think I can make my mouth DO that noise

I've heard that pronunciation most commonly, but I have also heard people who pronounce it more like "nu-win" (with a sort of subtle "ngu" sound as the first syllable). I think there might be regional differences within Vietnam for pronouncing that particular surname, but I'm guessing that an English speaker pronouncing it "win" would generally be fine.

As a general thing, native English speakers are pretty miserable at pronouncing anything that begins with "ng" correctly, no matter the language. It's a common sound in at least a handful of SE Asian languages. I've been trying to learn to speak Tagalog (which also has that particular syllable pretty commonly), and it's taken me years to get to the point where I can pronounce it really badly (rather than not at all).

As with friendships, what married couples called each other in private depended more upon the closeness of their relationship than on anything else. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet used formal titles when talking to each other because their marriage was not a close one. Emma's sister Isabella called her husband John by his first name or "my love" (and vice versa) because their marriage was a close one.

The other thing is that, particularly in books about people who are unmarried (such as Jane Austen novels), the main character is more likely than not going to hear people who are married referred to by their titles even by their spouses. To use Emma as an example, it wouldn't surprise me if Mr. and Mrs. Weston used their given names when talking to each other in private. Theirs was a love match, and they are presented throughout the book as happily married and close to each other. But Emma knows them as Mr. Weston and Mrs. Weston (nee Taylor), because she doesn't have the sort of relationship with either of them that allows for using their first names. So even if Mrs. Weston called her husband by his first name in private, she'd refer to him as Mr. Weston when talking to Emma, because that's how Emma knew him.

It (how people were addressed) was also something which changes quite quickly. For instance, in Emma, Mrs Elton refers to Mr Knightly as 'Knieghtly', and the fact that she does so, rather than speaking of him as 'Mr Knightly' is evidence of her vulgarity. However, in other books, male characters are referred to by the surnames and it isn't rude. I think that in S&S, the fact that Miss Steele and Mrs Jennings refer to Marianne as 'Miss Marianne' rather than 'Miss Marianne Dashwood' is again one of the ways that Austen shows them as being vulgar and ill bred - they are using an inappropriately intimate version of her name.

In P&P, Elizabeth is addressed as 'Miss Bennett' when she visits Rosings as she is the only Bennett girl there, and Lady Catherine has never met Jane. (and if I recall correctly, Mr Darcy addresses her as 'Miss Bennett' rather than 'Miss Elizabeth Bennett' when he starts to try to win her - it shows his respect.

Men might refer to each other using just their surnames, but I don't know if there were any situations where it was appropriate for a woman to use that form of address for a man. If there were, I suspect it would be only when a close relationship was present, but I'm not sure even that would make it acceptable. Thus, Emma makes no comment whatsoever on Mr. Elton referring to Mr. Knightly as just "Knightly," but it's obnoxious of Mrs. Elton to call him that.

I don't know that Mr. Darcy switching to "Miss Bennet" was a form of respect. I think that was just what anyone would have called Elizabeth Bennet when speaking directly to her without Jane present, and, as you said, how people would talk about her when she was the eldest Miss Bennet in the area/in their acquaintance. He clearly started thinking of her as just Elizabeth at some point, since right after she accepts his proposal at the end of the book, that's what he starts calling her.

Okay, this might not exactly be a stupid question, but it's kind of minor and it didn't seem to deserve its own thread.

There's a cheesecake shop/bakery in town that I bought some rhubarb jelly from recently, and when I opened the lid I found some mold. I called the shop and told them, and when they checked the other jars of rhubarb jelly they found the same thing! The owner has a lot of experience with this, and she's stumped--it doesn't seem to have happened to any other flavor.

Does anyone know if there's anything about rhubarb that can mess with jelly and cause it to go bad more quickly? Mostly I'm asking because she promised to let me know if and when she works out the problem so I can get my rhubarb jelly fix, so I'm wondering if I should keep hoping or if it might be a lost cause.

It's also possible they didn't do the canning properly - if it's not up to the proper temp or parts (like the lids) didn't get properly boiled, it's entirely possible to get bacteria/mold spores in there.

I have been trying hard to make decent biscuits. Most recipes stress that everything has to be ice cold, to put all the ingredients you are not working with at that moment in the fridge, to put the butter and flour mixture back in the fridge after cutting the butter in, etc. But biscuits are a Southern US tradition and fridges are rather recent. So how were the buttery bits of goodness made in a Georgia summer before refrigeration? Based on the recipes I've read, it would have been impossible since the ingredients would be pantry cool, not fridge cold.

I have been trying hard to make decent biscuits. Most recipes stress that everything has to be ice cold, to put all the ingredients you are not working with at that moment in the fridge, to put the butter and flour mixture back in the fridge after cutting the butter in, etc. But biscuits are a Southern US tradition and fridges are rather recent. So how were the buttery bits of goodness made in a Georgia summer before refrigeration? Based on the recipes I've read, it would have been impossible since the ingredients would be pantry cool, not fridge cold.

Lard

Logged

Meditate. Live purely. Quiet the mind. Do your work with mastery. Like the moon, come out from behind the clouds! Shine. ---Gautama Buddah